2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-2-2004 

# T ounk a r a v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3449

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" T ounk a r a v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 153. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/153NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 03-3449 SORY TOU NKARA, Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERA L

OF THE UNITED STATES Respondent Petition for Revi ew of a Decision of t he Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 20, 2004 Be for e: M cK EE , Circuit Judges , RO SE NN and W EIS , Senior Circuit J udges
. (Fil ed: November 2, 2004) OPI NION M cK EE , Circuit

Judge
. Sory T oun kara a rgue s that the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals ( “BIA ”) erred in affirmi ng a ruli ng of an Immigration Judge ( “IJ”) denyi ng his re quest for a waiver of the jo in t f il in g r equ ir emen t t o r emov e co ndi ti ons fr om hi s pe rma nen t res id enc y . He cl ai ms that t he denialwas not supported by s ubstantial e vidence. Specifi call y, Tounkara argues that t he IJ and BIA err oneouslybased their decis ion on evide nce of his s eparation from

### 2

his wife t

hree and a hal f year s after their marriagerather

than on the ir i ntent at the t ime of their marriage . For the reasons that f ollow, we wil l dis miss the peti tion for review for lack of j urisdi ction. I. Bec ause we write o nly for the parties, it is n ot nec essary to re cite the f acts of this case in de tail . It

is suff icie nt to note that

Mr. Tounkara, who was admitted to theUnited States on November 29, 1989 and whose stat us was adjusted to that of a condi tional permanent r esident

on April 22, 1993 based on his marriageto Feli cia Shanel l Fiel ds approximat elynine months earli er, had hi s Peti tion to Remove the Conditi ons on Res id en ce de ni ed byth e I NS a nd h is co ndi ti ona l res id en cywas te rmi na te d. The INS subs eque ntly com men ced re mo val pro ceed ings a gains t M r. Tou nkar a by filing a N otice to Appear (“NTA”) in immigrat ion court . The NTA charged that Mr. Tounkar a was removable pur suant t o 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a )(1)( D)(I), as an ali en whose conditi onal permanent r esident

stat us had been te rminate d pursuant to the s pecifi c provis ion of 8 U.S.C. § 1186a. That provi sion re quired Mr. Tounkar a and his wife to appear for inter view s w ith th e IN S. After heari ng testimony during Mr. Tounkara’ s removal hearing, the IJconcluded that Mr. T ounka ra was su bject to remo val as charg ed and that, in light of M r. Tounk ara’s conduct befor e, duri ng and after his marriage t o Ms. Fields , Mr. Tounkara fai led to meet his burden of dem onstrating that his m arriage w as bona fide and th at he w as eligible for a

### 3

waiver purs uant to 8 U. S.C. § 1186a(c )(4)( B). Mr. Tounkara’ s conduct, the IJconcluded, sugg ested th at the m arriage wa s enter ed into “for th e pur pose of o btainin g a be nefit under” the Immig ration and N aturalization Ac t (“INA ”), not in good faith. The B IA affirmed t

he IJ’s ruli ng, and this appealfollowed. II. There are two ways that the condi tions imposed on a condi tionalpermanent resi dent’s stat

us may be removed. The ali en and his or her cit izen spous e may fi le a j oint petit ion to remove the condit ion under § 216( c)(1) of the INA or the al ien may file an app licatio n fo r w aive r ofthe r equ irem ent to file th e join t peti tion und er § 216 (c)(1 4). 8 U.S .C. § 118 6a( c)(1 ), (c)( 4). In ord er to qua lify fo r the wa iver und er 8 U.S .C. § 118 6a(c)( 4)(B ), the alien mu st dem onstra te that “th e qua lifying m arriage wa s enter ed into in good fai th by the al ien spouse , but t he quali fyi ng marriagehas been te rminate d . . . and the al ien was not at

fault in fai ling to meet the requirement s of paragr aph (1). ” A central ques tion in e stablish ing the requ isite “go od f aith” is w hethe r the co uple in tende d to esta blish a life tog ethe r at th e tim e the y we re m arrie d. Bark v. INS , 511 F .2d 12 00 (9 th Cir. 1975). In making this determination, courts have considered evidence of the parti es’
con duc t bef ore , dur ing and afte r the ma rriag e. See Lutwak v. Unit ed State s , 344 U.S. 604 (195 3); Garc ia -J

ara mil lo v. INS , 604 F.2d 1236 ( 9th Cir. 1979) (consi dering s uch evide nce u nder 8 U .S.C. § 118 6a(b )(1)(A )(I), wh ich au thorize s the A ttorney G enera l to term inate the p erm ane nt re side ncy sta tus o f an alien wh en “ the q ualif ying m arria ge . . .1 Under paragraph 1, the al ien spouseand peti tioni ng spouse must s ubmit a petiti on

requesting the removal of the c onditi onal basi s and must appear for a pers onal interview with an im migration of ficer. 8 U.S.C . § 1186a (c)(1). 

### 4 was en tered into for the p urpose o f procuring an alien’s adm ission as an im migrant”). III Wh ile we ordin arily have jurisdiction to review a final remo val order un der 8 U.S .C. § 1 252 (a), Co ngre ss has prov ided th at:

Notwithst anding any ot her provi sion of l aw, no court s hall have juri sdiction to review – (i) any j udgment regardi ng the grant ing of relief under sec tion 1182 (h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of thi s ti tle, or (ii) any ot

her deci sion or a ction of the Attorney Generalthe authority for which is specifi ed under thi s subchapt er to be i n the di scretion of the Attorney General, other t

han the granting of relie f under section 1158(a) of this title. 8 U.S .C. § 125 2(a)(2)(B). “Su bcha pter” in § 12 52(a )(2)(B )(ii), refers to Sub chap ter II of C hapte r 12 o f Title 8, U.S. Code, which incl udes 8 U.S.C. § 1186a . Subsection (c) (4) of § 1186a es tabli shes
a se ries o f w aive rs, pu rsua nt to wh ich,

The AttorneyGeneral, in the Attorney General’s discr etion, may remove the conditi onal basi s of the permanent resi dent st atus for an alien w ho f ails to me et the req uire me nts o f pa rag rap h (1 ) . . . 1

. . . In acti ng on applic ations und er this p aragra ph, the Atto rney G enera l shall consider any c red ible e vid enc e rele van t to th e ap plica tion
. The determination of wh at evid ence is cred ible and the weight to be give n that e vidence shallbe with in the so le discre tion of the A ttorney G enera l.

### 5

8 U.S.C. § 1186a( c)(4) . An ali en may qual ifyfor one of the se waivers if he or s he can demonstrate that

“the qual ify ing marri age was enter ed into i n good faith by the ali en spou se, bu t the qu alifying m arriage has b een te rmina ted . . . and the alien wa s not a t fault in failing to mee t the requireme nts of parag raph (1).” 8 U .S.C. § 118 6a(c)(4)(B). The A ttorney General’s discre tion in deciding whe ther or not to gran t Mr. Tounkara’s requested good f aith wai ver is clearly “specif ied” within the s cope of 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c )(4). Thus, purs uant to 8 U. S.C. § 1252(a) (2)(B)( ii) , we are di vested of juris dicti on o ver M r. To unk ara’ s cla im a bse nt m ore than app ears on t his re cor d. 

### UrenaTavarez v. Ash croft , 367 F.3 d 154, 1 59-60 (3 d Cir. 200 4) (holdin g that 8 U.S .C. § 1252(a)(2 )(B)(ii) bars jud icial review of discretionary denial of

waivers und er 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c) (4).) Similarly , we are without jurisdict ion to reconsider the evidence before the IJ since, pursuant

to § 1186a(c) (4), “[t]he determi nation of what evidence i s credi ble and the
we igh t to b e giv en th at [is ] w ithin the s ole d iscre tion of th e A ttorn ey G ene ral.” Therefore, for the above reasons , we will dismis s the petiti on for revi ew for lack of juri sdiction.